G.R. No. 128085-87 - People vs. Razonable

Appellant Benjamin Razonable was charged in three separate but identically worded Informations for the crime of rape.
The offense charged involved appellant raping his daughter, Maria Fe Razonable, on three separate occasions in 1987.
The rape was committed with aggravating circumstances as the offender was her father, and it occurred in their own dwelling without any provocation from the complainant.

Occurred in the middle of June 1987 just before midnight.
Complainant, aged 12 at the time, was lying in her room on the second floor of their house.
Appellant entered the room, covered her mouth, restrained her hands, forced her to remove her clothing, and committed the rape.
He threatened her with death should she alert anyone.

While the complainant was asleep, appellant again appeared, removed her clothing, and forcibly repeated the sexual assault.
Despite her cries and pleas, he disregarded her protest and slapped her several times upon her struggling.
He repeated his threat of killing her if she disclosed the events.

At about midnight, as the complainant was standing in her room, appellant seized her arm and forced her to lie down.
He committed another act of rape, further subjecting her to his heinous advances.

Due to fear and the threat issued by her father, the complainant initially refrained from reporting the crimes.
It was not until February 1993 that she disclosed the events to her elder sister, prompting her to file a complaint.

The complainant was examined at the Camarines Norte Provincial Hospital, where her medical certificate noted incompletely healed hymenal lacerations at specific positions (5, 6, 7, and 9 o’clock).

Appellant testified that he was at his workplace, a bakery owned by Mrs. Balane, during the time the crimes were alleged to have been committed.
A witness (Wilfredo Francisco) corroborated that appellant was generally present at work during June 1987, though he admitted that appellant’s attendance was not continuous.
Appellant attempted to discredit the complainant by alleging that she was motivated by ill sentiment due to prior discipline toward her and her siblings.
A relative, Felix Razonable, testified regarding an alleged execution of an affidavit of desistance by complainant, although the complainant herself refuted this claim.

Trial occurred on the merits in the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Norte, Branch 39.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all three counts of rape.
Appellant was sentenced to suffer penalties of three (3) reclusion perpetua and was ordered to pay damages (initially P200,000.00, later modified) as moral damages.
The appellant raised two primary issues on appeal:

That the Information was fatally defective for not stating a precise date of the offense, thereby denying his right to be informed of the charge’s precise nature and to prepare an adequate defense.
That the evidence failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly contesting the identification of the perpetrator and the credibility of the complainant’s testimony.

Whether the allegation in the Information, stating that the offense was committed “sometime in the year 1987,” was too vague as to the date.
Whether this vagueness violated Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court and the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Whether the failure to state a precise date rendered the Information fatally defective as charged.

Whether the criminal evidence presented was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the complainant’s testimony, despite the delay in reporting and the continuing cohabitation with the appellant, was credible and persuasive.
Whether the defense’s reliance on an alibi and the assertion of ill motive on the part of the complainant and her siblings was enough to create reasonable doubt.

Whether appellant waived his right to object by not raising the defect in a timely manner through a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars.
Whether the issue regarding the vague date could be raised for the first time on appeal.